SMAC is better

[Enigma]

I like the speed that civ3 plays at, nice and slowly. If it had a bit more AI variety and all the bugs were fixed and a bit of the gameplay tweaked it would be fun...

SMAC is still my fav though, I like that sci fi aspects of it, the specialization, and the amount of skill required to do well.

Part of the reason the AI does better in Civ3 is that the game is *drastically* simplified, it would be nearly impossible to program the AI to use crawlers effectively. Pop booms also, pretty much all of the skill aspects that the player used to tactically outmanage the AI have been removed, I can still trounce the AI in war but not quite as easily as SMAC, wars are based more on attrittion which the AI is good at (it knows how much stuff you have).

I liked the SE idea a lot better than a few generic governments... of course a futuristic game like SMAC is less constrained by history than a game like civ3.

I think this game will be better single player after some patches, multiplayer is a tossup though... long games of attrition do not sound like my cup of tea for MP.

This game does put far too much of an emphasis on how much developed land you have, it is too easy for a dominant superpower to stay that way in my opinion, you can make military and infrastructure too easily, and they use the same kind of production infrastructure (IE shields).

SMAC seemed much more skillfully crafted at times... lets not forget it had its share of bugs too though (infinite air drop anyone?)

But the community after patch 3, we were left with a big list of bugs that weren't fixed. I don't think that they will now, I have a feeling that Firaxis will try to interact a bit more with the consumers. They are probably as pissed at Infrogrames as we are... it is not like they knew when they signed up with Infrogrames that they would have to release a beta...

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by Enigma
SMAC seemed much more skillfully crafted at times... lets not forget it had its share of bugs too though (infinite air drop anyone?)

Are you sure about this bug you mention??
Cann't remember which tech, but after you have it orbital airdrops anywere is available. (Or do I remember wrong?)

[georage]

10 reasons why SMAC is better

I will back up my initial statement that SMAC is better:

1. It was a new, fresh storyline with characters (AI) that actually felt like different types of opponents. And your opponents could be tweaked to no end. Multiplayer was possible. Civilization 3 seems tired by comparison. SMAC meant constant backstabbing, sabatoge and battles against humans and an alien planet. Civ3 plays more like a "horde and build" Monopoly fest.

2. The movies and voices may be the best I have ever seen. The opening "Conclave Bible" quote from the Gaian lady still gives me chills. Completing a project felt like an achievement. And how cool was the Hunter-Seeker Algorithm?

3. Mind worms. An unholy terror at max levels. And you could grow your own! DEMON BOIL.

4. Scenario Editor was awesome! Like another game almost. I loved pitting the Gains (me!), University and Morganites against Hive/U.N and Spartan/Believer teams with the diplomacy editor. On the highest difficulty this always ended in planet-busting armagedeon. I usually lost, but still it was a blast.

5. The unit editor. You have never heard maniacal laughter until you've seen a nerve gas chopper or SAM hovertank in action. Anyone ever try a sea-crawler!

6. Combat made more sense to me. Strange how a unit made 10 years later (in game time) in SMAC dusts an inferior unit but in Civ3 you have archers taking out tanks. We're not rewriting history, Sid, we're ripping apart what is plausible in favor of the absurd.

7. Planet Busters! I already touched on this, but the coolest way to win in a super huge map game of SMAC was to build submersible domes in your major cities and just start planet busting the hell out of people. Yang isn't so tough when half his cities are in craters and the other half are floating away! The whole rising and falling oceans things was great.

8. Blood truce and probe teams. (OK, I know they are not really related but I have to fit all these into 10 reasons!)

9. In massive games the governors seemed better at running their cities, the building que was awesome and the display of city information was a lot more sensible. You need a steady stream of tanks? Que them up.

10. The interface was better, moving units in Civ3 is a joke. So is the cultural border thing. It sounded cool in the manual though!

Just an opinion of course. But a year from now I will still play SMAC.

G.

[Dev]

CIV3 has no MORGAN, nuff said!

/dev

[Zakalwe]

Why SMAC is better than Civ3

...the Cloning Vats project movie. Somehow it always manages to scare the s**t out of me...

While I've been happily playing Civ3 for several nights, it doesn't hold me in thrall the way SMAC did. I can't pinpoint the dissatisfaction, but likely it has to have something to do with the lighter tone. I really loved the seriousness and dark humour in SMAC, and would have preferred a more sombre approach in Civ3 It's probably linked with the fact that I've been trained as a historian - not too conductive a basis for a light-hearted approach to six thousand years of misery and suffering.

Still, I can see the potential in Civ3. After a few patches, It'll probably be the best game of the genre.

Z

[Bubba_B]

I can't pinpoint the dissatisfaction, but

You are right on Z

Civ III is a good game but..........

Maybe it is time to put this horse out to pature

[Dev]

Another couple of pro smac things.

- Elite units gain an extra move. (should have put this in Civ3 too).

- Improved power sources upgrades unit life.


Some SMAC cons

- AI building zillions of useless water cities.

- Copter being way overpowered (can be changed in a text editor though).


/dev

[Earthling7]

I am going to compare the two. I haven't made up my mind yet, but will look at this post before submitting and conclude.

Interface: SMAC - Civ3 has a lot of commands, but most hidden. You need to use the keyboard. Evidence of an unfinished game.
Originality: SMAC, hands down. When you look beyond the story, graphics and names, SMAC is essentially a Civ game, but so many new things were added. It was the first true sequel. Civ3 has added Resourses and Culture, which enhance the experience, but taken too much out to deserve this point.
Graphics: This is a tough one. The elevated SMAC map was great, complete with it's own weather system, but very basic looking. Civ3 units are good, but the tiles leave a lot to be desired. The CtP tiles looked better. I'll give this to SMAC, simply because Civ3 failes to impress in the area.
Units: SMAC. I miss the workshop. I loved assembling my own units. I know the setting makes a huge difference, but they are games designers, they should have thought of something.
Multimedia: Does Civ3 have multimedia? Intro movie, easter egg movie and a final movie. SMAC had some of the finest videos ever seen in a game.
Packaging: My standard SMAC box is more impressive than the Civ3 tin, let alone the standard box.

It looks as if SMAC is walking away with this trophy. Don't take this wrong. I am not pro-SMAC - anti-Civ3. I love Civ3. I agree with Yin (?) that Civ3 is a jewel in the rough. It has the potential to be the best game ever, but it will take an expansion pack, and even then, many things, mutimedia especially, will not be addressed.
I remember when SMAC was being developed, it was supposed to be released before Christmas, but it wasn't ready. Instead of releasing a beta, they released it in the new year. Less lucrative, but better PR. If Firaxis would take advise from me (which they probably won't), it would be to work more with EA and less with Infogrames.

[Jkondrac]

SMAC vs. CIVIII which is better? Thats a tough question.
I love them both! I've read threads upon threads on how the CIVIII AI is weak, and how challenging the SMAC AI is. How CIVIII is just a beta and Firaxis will crumble for it. How SMAC diplomacy and innovation is much better. How everyone wished Brian Reynolds didn't quit Firaxis until after CIVIII. I've heard it all. The fact is you can't really compare CIVIII to SMAC. They are two completely different games. One is based on the future and one is based on the past. You simply can't have certain diplomacy options in CIVIII as you did in SMAC because it would be unrealistic. I thought that was the point of the Civ series, realism. To me SMAC is a direct sequel to CIVII. In comparison to CIVII, SMAC rocks.. CIVIII took alot from SMAC in rebuilding the interface. To me the interface in CIVIII is awesome because it feels like SMAC. Sure CIVIII has some glaring flaws, or was released as a "beta" if you want to go that route. BUt thats what patches are for.. I can't think of one game in the past ten years that was perfect and didn't need at least 1 patch...
The only true comparsion for CIVIII is SMAC2 if we are even blessed with that game!!!

[Skanky Burns]

I never really got into SMAC, it just lacked a certain something that Civ had ( Civ 2 to a certain extent lacked that certain something too...)
But for me, Civ 3 has that same addictive quality, the kind that made me get up at 5:30 in the morning before going to school, just so i could play for 3 hours

About cultural borders, i feel that Civ 3's is a step up from SMAC's. In SMAC, anyone could plonk a city just outside of your capitals border, and suddenly they control half the land between themselves and your capital?? At least the new cities in Civ3 only push back borders by 1 square. (although i have no idea why Firaxis let them do that...)

Queues: I prefer SMACs over Civ 3s. You could save a few different queues, and just load them up when needed. Now you can only save 1 queue at a time AFAIK.

Just commenting on Jeje2s comment on queue deleting:
Its easy to delete queues - just press shift-delete.
Or you talking about deleting a queue template??

[Dev]

If Firaxis would take advise from me (which they probably won't), it would be to work more with EA and less with Infogrames.

You better be joking... :P

EA is by far the worst company in the entire industry, ask any Ultima Online player.....
Thery ONLY thing that matters for them is $$$ and they could care less if that means publishing unfinished games (much much worse than Civ3) and having horrid support in general.


/dev

[Compugasm 2]

While I think the CivIII strategies are good, the trade system is great, game operation in general is bad. I have a chess game, and i don't play it for the graphics. So until patches come out, i am shelving this game.

[DeadDireWolf]

Interesting point....

A big difference between Civ3 and SMAC that nobody has mentioned yet (and it surprises me). Eventhough Sid's name was in the title he had (from what I've read) very little to do with the game.

SMAC was a Brian Reynolds' game and not a Sid Meier game.

That my friends is the big difference. Why doesn't Civ3 and SMAC have a different feel? Cuz Brian had enough of Sid's big headed **** and left the project. Hence -- not as good as game. Now, who's the real design genius here? Give credit where credit is due. Don't get me wrong, I like Civ3 but that's why they games have a different feel. IMHO, of course.

[squid]

SMAC had a weak implementation of borders and in my opinion it didn't have enough units.

It had a lot of building improvements, but you couldn't look at your city so all you got to see was a REALLY BORING looking icon. The graphics were pretty bad.

I did like the terrain and the science fiction element.

It needs a graphics overhaul and the Civ3 AI ... plus a few more unit chasis

[Imran Siddiqui]

If Firaxis would take advise from me (which they probably won't), it would be to work more with EA and less with Infogrames.

Uh... they do. Civ3 is the ONLY game Firaxis will do with Infogrames (unless there is a Civ4). Remember, Infogrames owns the Civ name.

Now, who's the real design genius here? Give credit where credit is due. Don't get me wrong, I like Civ3 but that's why they games have a different feel. IMHO, of course

Bull****! Sid made Civ1. Sid doesn't like doing sequals. SID WASN'T DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN OF THIS GAME (though I still think it is better than SMAC was in terms of gameplay). I laugh when I hear that Brian Reynolds was the genius, when all he was doing was building on Sid's blueprint since Day 1.

Hell, look at Gettysburg!, which Sid was very involved in. It is considered one of the best wargames of all time, and I must concur in that sentiment.